Senate’s passage of health care reform bill (4 letters)

National health care, in whatever form, is wrong on principle. The success of this nation is due to its founding principles of individual rights and the freedom to choose.

The essence of these principles is that individuals should achieve their own values and not be forced to achieve the values of others. Legislation such as this runs counter to a free society, and will undermine the historically unprecedented success that has taken centuries to build.

This is an attempt to force provisions with legislation, but mandated services of any kind will only function with the willing participation of those who can provide. What happens when we refuse?

Justin Blackman, Golden

This letter was published in the Dec. 30 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

A suspected terrorist attempts to blow up a plane — which may have killed 300 people — and “the United States believes it was an attempted act of terrorism.” This week, close to 300 people will die due to their lack of health care insurance or the out-of-pocket resources to pay for the care they require, and most Americans will continue to question the health care reform initiatives. Terrorism scares us, we retaliate with two wars, expend trillions of dollars, and tolerate the loss of our soldiers’ lives and many others innocently affected. The privatized health care system is causing between 15,000 and 45,000 deaths a year in our country, we oppose reform, and we call it capitalism. What’s wrong with us?

Mark Zaitz, Denver

This letter was published in the Dec. 30 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

In Washington, D.C., 60 grinches wheeled and dealed to deliver a health care package so they could stuff it down the American chimney in time for Christmas. Some states, like Nebraska, received presents, while other states received lumps of coal.

In 2010, these same 60 grinches will take on the so-called and perhaps fictitious climate change. They will try to tax that lump of coal.
With Congress’ extremely low approval rating, we need and deserve better representation in Washington.

Pat Marx, Centennial

This letter was published in the Dec. 30 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

While other states’ U.S. senators were busy selling their votes to pass President Obama’s health care measure, our two senators simply fell into line like nice soldiers and went along with Sen. Harry Reid’s arm twisting without getting anything for us in return. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska cashed in bigtime for the benefit of Nebraska’s Medicaid recipients. So, too, with Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Connecticut’s Chris Dodd. Even Florida’s Bill Nelson made sure that his state’s seniors will be given special privileges as well.

So clearly, now that the nefarious game in Washington, D.C., has been made obvious, we need to elect some good, upstanding people here in Colorado to represent us who will know how to play hard-to-get with their votes and get us in on the political gravy train.

Dick Wisott, Centennial

This letter was published in the Dec. 30 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here.

The question we need to ask is: how much will the proposed health care bill increase the size and involvement (control) of Government?What percentage of health care is already controlled by the government?What percent of the GDP is comprised by federal spending?Will this legislation actually reduce the deficit? Or is that illusion caused by smoke and mirrors?Etc.Let's think more deeply, before we make a huge mistake. There are better solutions.(and why did the Democrats have to 'rush' this through, and offer buyouts to get the necessary votes?? Something smells very rotten in Denmark). Once socialism gains a foothold, it is almost impossible to eradicate it. Very much like cancer.

Anonymous

“There are better solutions.” OK, let’s hear some. We’ve been debating health care reform for nearly 60 years and it’s clearly time to push back and get the whole issue of health care under some sort of control. A federal law states that it is unlawful to deny emergency health care to anyone, so as a nation we have believed for some time that it should be treated as a right and not a privilege. Honestly, I have to laugh when people oppose a public option by extolling the efficiency of private health insurance companies. Everyone I know has at least one war story of dealing with their insurance company.
Government control? What part of “option” don’t you understand? Throughout Europe they have socialized medicine with a private option…the reverse of what is proposed here. It shouldn’t scare you – if you don’t want a government agency to handle your insurance, you have the OPTION of buying a policy with a private firm….or vice versa.

phornbein

And with socialized medicine, all Americans will be covered and won't have to worry about going bankrupt due to medical bills; they won't be dying because of a lack of medical care due to costs.However, Bellle, I agree with the essence of your argument: We need to think far more deeply about this before we make a huge mistake. I'm not a Democrat (I'm far to the left of them–as you've probably noticed), but I agree–Why did they have to rush this through when there are other issues, more immediately pressing. One comes to mind: making sure that the counterterrorism agencies, etc., Bush put in place are actually working.

theoldgrouch

Mr. Bell, as usual, is tilting with windmills, and knocking down straw men, in his current meaningless and pointless gloom and doom screed. There is nothing in the Senate bill that creates “socialized medicine”; but, again as usual, this buzz-word/phrase is bandied about as if it really meant something, and the Nation was really threatened by it.In point of fact, however, the matter is quite different, all round. The Senate bill, however much one dislikes the current President, and/or the Democratic Party, is only ONE PART of the Legislative process. And, while it is not perfect, in any manner whatsoever, nevertheless it contains provisions that, after a Joint Congressional Committee meets to consider the House and Senate versions, may well be part of the final Bill for Health Care Reform that passes Congress and is sent to the President for signature or veto.The Bells of this world, however, tinkle furiously and cacaphonically, about their own fantasies of how things “ought to be”, rather than offering a single constructive alternative to the reality of things as they are. Much noise, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.The people of the United States WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM. Indeed, they overwhelmingly demonstrated this reality at the polls last year. It's too bad the Bells are merely noise makers, and have nothing to offer other than that.

bellle

Grouch hates to hear the word socialism. But everyone knows that's where liberals are trying to take America. Why do some continue to live in a world of denial?And his last paragraph is in error. Nearly 55% of the America don't want the Obama health care bill.

Tony_T

You ask very pertinent questions in your first post on these letters. But to throw out “Socialism” and tell us its evil weakens your argument. The socialism we all fear is really the totalitarianism of the last century. If we somehow get a real universal health care – and this bill is not it, a good start(I hope) – it won’t lead to that nightmare we rightly opposed as a nation.
I have more concern about my privacy and freedom being taken by corporations than I do by the government and right now it is corporate interests which are dictating most of our national policies rather than the needs of the citizens.

theoldgrouch

Would you care to give us a definition of “socialism”, O Great Pundit? And, how do you know anything about where liberals “are trying to take America”? Are you certain it's not a matter of bellle just “hating to hear, read, or otherwise correctly use the word, 'liberal'”; and attempting to prevent intelligent assessment of a matter by constantly ascribing nothing more than bellle's own fantasies to it ?And, with respect to your last paragraph, as usual you merely fantasize, without the slightest basis in fact. To begin with, there is no such thing as an “Obama health care bill”. There are two versions of health care reform currently in Congress, one in the House and the other in the Senate. Before either of these becomes a final draft of a Bill – which, in turn, must pass both Houses – the two current drafts will have to be considered, and compromise between them put together by, and passed in, a Joint Committee. Only after completion of the Legislative processes in full, and afixing of the President's signature to the Bill, to make it become Law, may one logically and truthfully speak of the matter as being a “President's Bill”.And as to your statistics: Since your fantasy concerning the bill lacks basic facts, where do you come up with your percentages of those who don't want something that doesn't exist to begin with?But then again, you have never really let absence of truth, fact, or other little matters of reality prevent you from sounding off before now. So . . . no one really expects anything different anyway.

bellle

Romulus …..why do liberals always pretend to be so caring about the welfare of others?And yet surveys continue to show that liberals contribute less to charity than conservatives do.Can you help us understand this disparity in thinking?

theoldgrouch

In reply to your completely off topic question, there's no “thinking” there to begin with, much less a “disparity”. Contributions to charity are only ONE possible measure of “caring about the welfare of others”. And, in the end, it is the very least reliable, or valid, of all; since many people follow the precepts of the Gospel – the part of the Bible which you seem never to have read – which enjoin us to perform our acts of charity WITHOUT calling attention to them by having “trumpets and drums marching before us”, totally unlike the publicity “conservatives” always seem to need when they deign to throw a few pennies to the crowd.But then again, for you to stick to the topic you would have to actually know something about the topic to begin with. Which you have already amply demonstrated you do not.

bellle

Grouch again resorts to personal attacks.Sad.

Romulus

Justin Blackman tries rather unconvincingly to make the argument that national health care is wrong in principle. Isn’t it odd that every other major industrialized country has come to the opposite conclusion? For the richest country in the world to put the profit motive above human health is a national disgrace.

phornbein

As much as I'd like to see socialized medicine, I'm afraid, Bellle, you've been paying too much attention to right-wing talking points, rather than what the actual bills have in them. There is nothing, in either the House or Senate Bills, that is even remotely a move toward Socialism.

phornbein

Because the government is responsible for the general welfare and it's a crime that we're the only country that doesn't provide health care. I fail to see what the charitable giving patterns of liberals or conservatives has to do with the government providing for the general welfare. By extension, what you're suggesting is that when you have your massive coronary and get hit with a $100,000+ bill, that you have to seek out charitable organizations that are willing–and able–to give you the money you need to keep you from going into bankruptcy (and once you go into bankruptcy, the general taxpaying public picks up the tab–just like in a socialist system).Stick to the point.

bellle

phornbein…your proposition is incorrect. Just because every other country is becoming socialistic is no justification that America should copy them. Sorry. Again…let's not be hypocritical. Our personal giving to charity should match our 'words' about what we expect other people to give to the government. Socialism is NOT the solution.

toohip

Second to Mark Zaltz. Fantastic reality check! The media and the rest of us fail to address our misguided priorities and I couldn't of said it better!

phornbein

Socialism is the solution.And no other country is becoming socialistic. They either are social democracies or have socialist/labor parties represented in their governments. They also provide health care for all their citizens so people aren't dying or going bankrupt. Furthermore, one of the great Marxist statements is, “From each according to ability, to each according to need.” If we come to rely on charitable giving, how is that different from the Marxist philosophy?I don't really see the connection between personal giving, what are called “charitable gifts,” and the government providing for the general welfare, ensuring our “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”

Anonymous

The absurdity of Belle’s assertion deserves a closer look. Conservatives control the vast majority of wealth in the United States, and being committed to retaining it, they take advantage of every tax break and loophole ever conceived. This, of course, includes charitable contributions. Please don’t confuse writing off a golf outing with Make-a-Wish in Palm Springs with compassion for the less fortunate.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FX2NX3YS2ZR6NRLGM5WZJRZT2M Denis

Very true. Those like bellle who like to parrot this utterly meaningless “statistic” also like to ignore the fact that they choose to call donations to organizations that spend much of their funds on promoting hate and ignorance as charitable, as if a tax write-off made their goals noble. If the money is not going to feed, clothe, cure, counsel and educate those in need, then here is nothing remotely charitable involved.

Anonymous

Justin Blackman states “National health care, in whatever form, is wrong on principle. The success of this nation is due to its founding principles of individual rights and the freedom to choose.”

Would he be happy with an “opt out” clause? Of course, during that period when the person who opts out of health care coverage, they would also be opting out of any form of Medicare/Medicaid, even in the case of a catastrophic illness for themselves or any member of their family – as well as being locked out of access during the “opt out” period for getting any form of subsidized health care (such as CHIP) for their minor children.

If “individual rights and the freedom to choose” are so important (since companies are treated as individuals under the law), shouldn’t the government immediately rescind the antitrust exemption which has allowed virtual monopolies to form in the states served by companies and allow “cross state” health insurance sales? These virtual monopolies have literally allowed the health insurance companies in a given state (such as Colorado) to “price fix” the rates on a regular periodic basis – which is hardly an example of how a “free” market is supposed to work!

JohnCOS

I do not agree with the health care reform bill and hope that it does not pass. My larger concern though is the thinking of people like Dick Wisott thinking that we need to reward Congressmen who bring money to their state. That is what is ballooning our deficit and giving our kids and grandkids a HUGE burden. I love how our wonderful Senator Bennett made comment to that fact but voted for the bill anyway. That is a larger disgrace then the fact that he did not hold out for money for Colorado.

Anonymous

An excellent point. I, too, don’t like the current bills (although the House’s, with its Public Option, is a tad more palatable). With that said, it’s a crime that votes can be so obviously bought. It’s just as bad for votes to be purchased by lobbyists (e.g., health care insurers) as it is by one caucus or another.

bellle

phornbein…for an intelligent person, you ask rather interesting questions.It should be obvious that charitable giving is totallyy different than the government telling us who we have to give our money to.If the government told you to give half of your money to me….would you be happy about that??I rest my case.

bellle

Walt….it sounds like you want me to give you some of my money (via the 'government').But….I have to ask “why must I?” (respectfully).Can you give me a good reason??Socialism is all about taking from somebody else.Does that encourage hard work and effort??NO

Anonymous

Socialism is also giving to someone else–from each according to ability, to each according to need. So it’s not just taking, it’s making sure that everyone’s needs are met.

I feel bad for you if the only reason you work is for the money. I, and all of my colleagues, are not teachers for the money.

Buddy

I beg to differ with your simplistic definition of socialism, its about redistribution of wealth and has nothing to do with the ability to be productive.

Anonymous

I agree, however, there is no room whatsoever for a complete discussion/definition of Socialism, either from Das Capital or from the Communist Manifesto, or from any of the other Socialist authors. Also, consider that my post was in reply to Bellle–I felt I needed to be very brief.

In the more subtle aspects of socialism, it does deal with the ability to be productive and one’s productivity relative to the redistribution of wealth.

Anonymous

That is both a definition of, and basic explanation for, Socialism, as that social/political/economic theory presents itself, and is presented by those who were/are its original proponents. That it results in a redistribution of wealth in some areas is one part of the whole. The other part IS based upon the productivity of both the individual and the economic unit producing – farm, factory, etc. – since without productivity there is nothing to “redistribute”.

No human government in history has ever been a “perfect” example of whatever it calls its ideal, or fundamental structure. And, of course, this is true of Socialism, which really does not exist anywhere in absolute form; nor has it so existed. The closest any group may have come to Socialism as such – at least in the United States – were the now nearly all defunct societies, and colonies, such as Amana, Shakers, and those other groups who separated from the society of their day and age to practice a community form of living that embodied the basics of production and distribution given above.

The possibility of Socialism as such actually being able to be implemented in a Nation of some 300 Million people, divided not only geographically but also geopolitically as well – mountains, plains, seacoasts and States, Counties, Cities, etc. – is really very minuscule, if even existant at all. Even those European Nations that tend towards an economic form of Socialist appearance are really more “Social-Democratic” than anything else. And these are Nations with far more history of a unified structure, both political and social, than we have here.

Use of the word, “Socialism” as a catch-all, carry-all, for anything one doesn’t like about a proposed piece of Legislation – or other governmental function, proposal, or political program – merely indicates the lazy mind that prefers sloganeering to actual participation in the complexity of government as we have it in America today.

Anonymous

“why must I?” Because it’s the right thing to do.

Bob Roberts

phornbein: That is your choice. May I be premitted to make my own choices, or will you be making them for all of us? You are arrogant if you think you know what is right. Please keep your ideolegy to yourself. It is truly important to you, then you do it. Don’t presume to know what is the “right thing to do”. That is the basis of the argument. I should help my fellow man, becuase it is what I want to do, not because the government forces me.

theoldgrouch

If you do know anything about the topic, why don't you stick to it, and give us all the benefit of your knowledge, rather than nothing more than evasions and a whole lot of “smoke and mirrors” when you get asked for simple answers to basically simple questions?

Anonymous

First on the dialogue between bellle and old grouch. Well said grouch! Bellle, you’re the proverbial classic conservative spreading your typical fear and loathing along with the lies about basic change. If you’re old enough you were on the front lines with the rest of your Republican ilk spreading lies and fear on social security and medicare – no health reform. This common use of the “S-word” – socialism, is just more of the lies and loathing. So what’s wrong with socialism? You use and endorse it every day in your life. What is the police and fire protection services you use if not socialism? The same with all the other “government services” you enjoy, not to mention the military you so revere. You’re a dying breed, bellle, your arguments are ancient and out of date.

Anonymous

toohip…respectfully you didn’t say anything to convince me to increase socialism in America.
And why do you hate hearing the word? That tells us something.

The rest of your defense does not support your position.
You just resort to attacks.
That’s what people do, who don’t have any support for their viewpoint.

Anonymous

Can you show where, in any of the proposals before both the House and Senate, where there is anything akin to a move toward Socialism?

You need to watch Glenn Beck more so that you can pick up some additional talking points. The socialism one is getting old and has been repeatedly refuted here and elsewhere.

Bob Roberts

It is a move toward Socialism when you begin taking resources (services) that are privately owned and begin redistributing them. It is not yours to give to who you please. Ability must be rewarded not intention. Your intentions are well meaning, but you have no possible way to produce health care for everyone, you begin to confiscate what is not yours to give out to who you want. This is an emotional topic but in the end, economics will prevail. The government cannot control costs. It cannot function effectively and effciently. Stop for a moment and look at what will happen when demand increases without supply increasing.

Anonymous

and finally to Justin Blackman on freedom to choose. Very well written! – but a little misguided. “Freedom of Choice” is a fleeting concept that is used by many for good and evil. Would you deny a woman’s freedom of choice to have an abortion? How about a freedom of choice of a gay couple to marry?

“Force provisions” are a mainstay of an effective govt and a society, including ours. Would you like your fellow drivers to “choose” whether to get a driver’s license, a gun permit, auto liability insurance, building permits, or any of the other non-choice items? It’s the way a gov’t and a society exists. I agree with you that the health care bill is flawed because of this mandatory requirement to get health care, but the flaw is in the failure to proved a public option and forcing people to buy expensive private health insurance. People should be required to buy health ins they “can” afford, because otherwise they are at the mercy of the rest of us to pick up their health care bills. Is that the kind of society you want – where people have all free choices and don’t become responsible? YOU are going to have to pay for their bad choices not to protect themselves and you.

phornbein

No, I wouldn't be happy. But if the government told me to give half of my money to them so they could provide you–and all other Americans–with health care, I would gladly do so.The difference between charitable giving and the gov't telling us who THEY'RE going to give our money to is that when you get sick, you don't have to hold benefit auctions to raise money for your medical bills; with the government, spreading out the risk to all taxpayers, you don't have to go hunting for some charitable organization to HELP pay for your medical expenses. Further, when the risk is spread across all taxpayers, each pays significantly less so all may have medical care.Your naive notion about charitable giving means that we are dependent on others' charity–and the state of the economy–for our medical care. If charitable giving is down (as it currently is) who is going to ration the care, the charities?

phornbein

A few that come to mind: my favorite, single-payer; tort reform, allow only non-profits to supply health insurance, eliminate the anti-trust exemption.

easywalt

The only opposition I can muster to any of these suggestions is that of “non-profits;” which I consider to be a contradiction in terms. As for the anti-trust exemption, it should be repealed altogether. It only applies to two industries and both are in a sorry state. I'm surprised that a country who worships at the altar of free enterprise would tolerate anti-trust laws…let the market run its course.

Bob Roberts

phornbein, I am sure you would agree with Mr Franklin: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. As with counterterrorism and health care, when you ask me to give up my freedom to ensure security, I refuse. Please don't assume to think you know how best to spend my resources and where they should go. I refuse to give up my rights and give you the right to choose how I will get my healthcare. Socialism will take away my right to chose my destiny. You will confiscate what is mine, decide where it should go and I have to accept this. Please leave my freedom alone. Don't try to dictate to me what I should have or need. Don't take what is mine. I am not here to provide for the government and whomever they feel should recieve the benefit of my hard work. Today it is healthcare. What is next?

phornbein

I do agree with Franklin. So, when you have your massive coronary that results in medical bills in excess of $100,000, why do you expect the taxpayers to pick up the balance after you've gone bankrupt because of the high deductible or the lifetime cap or the pre-existing condition or …Why do you think I care to chose where and how you'll get your health care? It's not my job. But under the current system, I refuse to have my tax dollars go to pay your health care because you may refuse to carry insurance or chose to only carry the cheapest insurance, or your employer carries lousy insurance for you or…I guess you're of the opinion that, as long as you got yours, everyone else can go pound sand. What a selfish existence you must have. Why, I'll even bet you don't mind that the CEO of United Health Care has a contract for $750million over 5 years–just one small contributing factor to why health insurance premiums have continued to skyrocket over the years–why a 30% annual increase is closer to the norm than to an outlier.What's next? I don't know, how about Social Security (but I'll bet you'll gladly take that when, and if, you can retire)? How about Medicare? What about Police and Fire–those are some wonderful socialist organizations that are there for the “general welfare.”Sorry, but selfishness and greed can no longer work.

Bob Roberts

Oh poor misguided phornbien. Your response is what I should have expected. You have not intellect to debate in a rational manner so you resort to strange accusations you know nothing about. Please don't claim to know what is best for me or what decisions I should or might make. That is the issue. You think you know best or know what I might do. How about you leave my life to me? How about you letting me make my own choices and letting me get the rewards or the consequences? Or are you one of those folks who have made bad choices and now want good outcomes? I am sorry for you. Don't ever claim to know what is best for me and my family. Your arogance is appalling! I chose freedom over your dictatorship. I chose to take responsibility for my choices. Do not make my choices for me. You confuse so much with your “holier than thou” attitude. You don't know what I have. You don't know how I got it. Don't claim to think you know what is best. Don't claim to think you pay anything for me. Get over yourself. Move toward freedom, not toward your narrow view of the world and that you know all that is good and evil. That you alone get to determine what is selfishness and greed. From my view, you are the greedy one. You are the shelfish one. I chose to determine my own path and my own way, I don't want some one like you to ever determine that for me or my childeren.

jamesbronson

Throughout this entire discussion, no one has addressed Mr. Blackman's very poignant question. “Mandated services” require people willing and able to provide them. What happens when men of ability refuse to let you take from them…?

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...